{"id":3169,"date":"2010-03-23T09:21:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-03T06:10:32","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-06-03T06:10:32","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3169","title":{"rendered":"AZ: Johnson<\/em> on remand finds the search of the passenger’s person valid"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Arizona v. Johnson<\/a>, 129 S. Ct. 781, 788, 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2009), on remand, the Arizona Court of Appeals concludes that the defendant passenger was lawfully searched because the officer had reasonable suspicion defendant was armed. State v. Johnson<\/a>, 220 Ariz. 551, 207 P.3d 804, 556 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 17 (2009).<\/p>\n

Surveillance officer saw defendant violate a traffic law and radioed for assistance, and an officer with a drug dog was dispatched for the stop. The entire stop took only ten minutes, and it was reasonable. State v. Nash<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 2477, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2080 (5th Dist. May 26, 2009).*<\/p>\n

A defendant stopped with PC for DWI has no constitutional right to refuse a breath or blood test. State v. Hill<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 2468, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2093 (5th Dist. May 22, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Including the omitted information that defendant contended was willfully withheld did not negate the probable cause, so the motion to suppress is denied. State v. Bell<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 2335, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2112 (12th Dist. May 18, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant’s stop was unreasonably continued, so the consent was not valid. State v. Huggett<\/a>, 228 Ore. App. 569, 209 P.3d 385 (2009):<\/p>\n

Although Andresen would have been free to question defendant about matters unrelated to the traffic offense during an “unavoidable lull” in his investigation of the offense, he was not similarly free to question him about unrelated matters as an alternative to going forward with the next step in processing the infraction, such as the writing or issuing of a citation. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant had been seen by a CI the day before the search with two ounces of meth, and the CI told the police. This was not stale information, and it gave reasonable suspicion for the stop. State v. De La Rosa<\/a>, 228 Ore. App. 666, 208 P.3d 1012 (2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant’s stop was with probable cause for leaving a known (as opposed to a suspected) drug house, and there was an objective basis for the stop. State v. Corley<\/a>, 2009 S.C. App. LEXIS 166 (May 14, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3169\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}